It would seem logical that all board manufactures could provide accurate measurments, especially volume.

I had an old 95 liter board that was a bit tricky to stay on when the wind dropped to 0-5 knots. I specifically moved up to a 105 liter board that was relatively easy to stay on and uphaul in less than 5 knots.

Through my 22 years of windsurfing, I knew that 105 liters was exactly what I wanted, and that is what I got (it was a HiFly 105 Move). If the board had actually been 100 or 110 liters, I would have returned it for a refund. It&#39;s important to get it right!

I was responsible for the third post about shoe sizes, so I probably have contradicted myself a bit.

On the other hand, I have quite a few dress shirts, all with neck size 16. Some of them you can stick you hand into the neck with the top button buttoned and some are so tight that they slow the blood supply to my brain. The point being that consistent and accurate measurements aren&#39;t what they should be.

30th March 2007 04:04 PM

qldsalty

RE: Hope for the future

I&#39;m the guest above with the Stype. I replaced a Kombat with the 93 Thinking it is only a few ltrs more than 87 taking careful note of width and tail width. I believe I could still bump and jump it in high wind. Of course I am wrong. I love my Stypes and am still delighted with what they do but feel a ripped about the volume. Please Starboard If you must use virtual volume for our benefit, also list real volume. I now have to get another smaller board.

30th March 2007 02:22 PM

geo

RE: Objective Testing / Measurements.

This was already discussed previously, so I am just repeating my opinion here.
Phisical measurements, such as volume or width or OFO or sail area, are supposed to be accurate. There is absolutely no reason to release inaccurate measures, at least if customer satisfaction is taken into some account. Additional indications may be added to better guide sailors in their choices.
Manufacturers can not know what the measurement infos are used to by each single specific sailor. As an instance, volume could be looked at by someone that thinks of floatability and then actual volume; or an expert sailor that thinks of board behaviour and then "virtual" volume may be interesting provided it is clearly stated as such. And since manufacturers do not know this, better by far to stick to correct measurements and additional infos. Please. Don&#39;t mess up what is already messed up, due to the complexity of a board&#39;s shape and influence of many single parameters.

30th March 2007 01:22 PM

Per

RE: Objective Testing / Measurements.

One single parameter like volume or width doesn&#39;t really tell anything about a boards expected performance.
It&#39;s the whole composition of width, volume, length, rocker flat, one foot off width, strap placement, fin size, weigth, plan shape etc. that gives the conjunction of performance of a given design.
Quite challenging for a designer. B)

30th March 2007 07:46 AM

Guest

RE: Agree

This week we had a lovely 25ktns and gusts up to 35/36. I went out on my Stype 93 with a 4.7, and found the board boucing all over the place. Simply couldn&#39;t keep it down. This was on one to two foot chop in a normally flat water location. Looking at ISAF i now see the REAL VOLUME is 99 ltrs. No wonder. LOve the board but a little dissapointed about the deception.

Also makes one wonder if there is any difference between the 93/104 Only 5 ltrs in real volume.

30th March 2007 01:17 AM

steveC

RE: Objective Testing / Measurements.

The anxiety and unhappiness about this "virtual volume" thing is a readily recurring theme. If the industry adhered to absolute correct volume measurements, one wonders whether folks would be unhappy with a board&#39;s performance characteristics, like "this board seems too big for its actual size". Seems like that must be the industry&#39;s fear.

For me, I would look at board&#39;s specifications as a general guideline rather than absolutes. After sailing many years, I have a pretty good idea what will float me just by looking at a board. In situations where I don&#39;t have the opportunity too see the product before buying it, rough guidelines have worked very well for me. Yet, I get the impression that I&#39;m in the minority about this and that most others view absolutes as critical and necessary information.

Maybe its high time to identify and adhere to absolute measurements. If performance characteristics belie actual physical specifications, a manufacturer can always use marketing information to advise potential customers.

30th March 2007 12:21 AM

Guest

RE: Objective Testing / Measurements.

I have feet that measure to size 11.5 (US). I have shoes ranging in size from 11 to 13.

You have to try them on to know if they fit. Same with a board. To be sure, you have to ride it to see if sinks or floats, or if it works the way the promotions say.

It&#39;s not a perfect world.

I can see why Starboard came up with the "virtual volume" for their boards a while back, but common sense finally won out when the feedback from the end users prevailed.

Ken

30th March 2007 12:20 AM

Per

RE: Objective Testing / Measurements.

Agree..
After ten years of windsurfing I still need somebody to tell me from where to where I chall measure the luff of my sails when they&#39;re quoted like "436 cm +/- 2 cm"... I&#39;ve never seen a sail with a precise indicator.
Anybody remember "virtual volume.."? My old formula 155 was 138 litres but "felt" like 155?!?
A 100 kgs I expect my 115 litre board to be exactly so and not 103 litres, cause no matter the feeling it will sinkB).. Luckily I guess my ST115 is quite precise.
All my Star boards were exactly the claimed length and width.
What&#39;s the max speed of a bicycle? A snowboard? A windsurfer??? It depends of the rider. An iSonic with a less experienced rider may be slower than a carve But if you give them to Albeau the iSonic will beat the Carve quite a lot. What about us ordinary sailors??

29th March 2007 04:47 PM

Floyd

Objective Testing / Measurements.

Anybody else agree that its high time we used more objectivity in classifying boards/ sails/equipment.
We still seem to have situation where boards and sails just are not the size/specification quoted.
I`m not saying boards aren`t as good as claimed (well they never are from anybody) but it seems our sport is one of the few where we buy something of a particular size/shape/volume and it just isn`t "wehat it says on the can".
This seems to apply to volume of boards; size of sails and even length of boards (go and measure yours!)
Width seems the only thing thats measured accurately.
Max speeds of boards might be more difficult but there are parameters that could be quoted. (Stall speed with various loads) Look at info available for HG. Of course pilot weight and skill influence things but there is still underneath that a lot of objective measurable data just ignored in our sport.
Imagine buying a pair of shoes and the shopkeeper claiming nonesense about apparent size and virtual volume ???? Yes but do they fit ???? Will it float me ???